No Burden, No Proof

I want to get rid of the ‘burden of proof’ mentality. If only one side in an contract ‘negotiation’ has a ‘burden of proof’, then it is not a negotiation. Rather, both sides should be seeking to prove their case (which also implies that an invalidation of the other is not always a valid proof). In contracts, both parties have the obligation to settle any foreseeable misunderstandings prior to the actual signing of a contract. We see this when one buys a house: in most circumstances, there are multiple inspections of the house (from both parties) in order to negotiate the contract. However, in the mass-marketed consumer world (e.g. insurance), we don’t see this: the contract is pre-arranged in bulk (sometimes even just fill-in-the-blank forms) and the seller places all responsibility on the buyer. The worst part, however, is that when a buyer requests any kind of negotiation, it is rejected under the excuse of ‘free market’ capital — that there are ‘better’ things the seller can be doing so take it or leave it. That’s a complete failure of negotiation, and it’s not the only case (e.g. we also see this in software EULA as well).